Maxims of Retention Marketing

We were speaking with a Client's chief executive today, an individual who we are only just getting to know, but someone who is well seasoned and whip smart.  We're a month into a strategic engagement to help them with what could be a pivotal decision point for the Brand, and this executive was jumping in to get to know us.  In the course of our chat, we were informed that (and we're paraphrasing here with some editorial liberty, but this is what we heard in essence):

Retention marketing is a broad term that means so many things, I'm not sure it means anything at all.

Well, you know what they say, "the client is always, right," right?  That's a tough one, because in many instances we're retained to help provide insight as domain experts in our field, and if it runs afoul of what the Client believes, then at best we can hope to help them on a journey of self-discovery.  So, of course we didn't dare take exception. 

However one thing stuck with us.  This executive chided that in speaking with many colleagues and friends on Boards of, and running some of the largest consumer brands on the planet that they almost uninamously agree that if they had to do it all over again, they would rather spend money they invested in retention and loyalty programs elsewhere because the programs did nothing for their bottom line by serving customers already loyal who didn't need a discount to continue buying.

Well, as you can imagine there is so much wrapped up in that comment its hard to know where to begin.  But that did get us thinking, and we decided to push this out to our readers, just in case you have someone on your own executive team who believes all this relationship and retention marketing stuff is "a bunch of hooey."

Next week we're sending one of our top analysts on a paper chase to track down the empirical data on whether, in fact, retention marketing is failing to positively affect bottom lines of the largest brands, and we promise to report back, whether buoyed or sunk by the results.  For now, we're going to venture out on the proverbial limb by betting they do, and offer 10 maxims of Retention Marketing:

  1. It is less expensive to retain an existing customer than to acquire a new one.
  2. The general definition of retention marketing is "marketing programs focused on increasing customer engagement, creating brand affinity, and fostering loyalty to a brand, company or product."
  3. In the digital Age, the consumer decides.
  4. The social web has forever redefined how brands relate to their customers certainly during acquisition, but more so in retention.
  5. Know ZMOT.
  6. Be SMART about messaging.
  7. Retention Marketing does not simply mean loyalty.
  8. Loyalty is different from affinity, but both are types of "relationships" in the world of relationship marketing/management.
  9. To manage relationships you must be able to measure retention.
  10. In the digital age, every company needs to be Facebook.

Now, we'll undertake to say more about each of these maxims in the ensuing weeks aside from other planned content we're brewing for you. 

For now, we stand by our position: pay attention to retention; its not meaningless marketing hype.  If you're concerned about cutting your marketing costs, spend your dollars on keeping your existing customers and let them help you acquire new ones.

It's Easy to be Scared; That's Exactly What "They" Want

In an orthogonal departure from our occasional stream of relevant content here, or at least a tangential departure, we want to briefly comment on the senseless and tragic event that marred one of the most historical mass participation events in the country yesterday, the Boston Marathon.

(And incidentally, we promise to pick up the frequency and hopefully quality of posting here shortly.)

"Orthogonal" to the extent this has nothing to do with how business connects with its clients and customers.  "Tangential" to the extent this actually might have a connection if we think about the wholesale collapse of what should have been a wonderful day of celebration and well, yes consumption, but most importantly: What that might mean for the next massive marathon, like this Fall in New York City.

Look at the headlines and column feet of commentary -- for instance today's edition of USA Today declares: "TERROR RETURNS" and "That Post 9/11 Quiet? Its Over."  And we don't mean to single out USA Today; heck, it was the entire newstand regardless of publication.  Sadly, it sells papers and persists the awful truth that we're a voyeur nation.  But here's another take: our's with an all caps "FWIW" meaning "For Whatever It's Worth."

Its easy to be scared.  As the details of this tragedy unfold its easy for us to demand our government do something, anything to make it go away.  It would be easy, but wrong.  Doing so plays right into the hands of the criminals responsible for this.  And it simply glorifies and illuminates whatever crazed cause they may have.  We say "they" because we bet it was more than a lone actor, but that's totally beside the point.

You see, terrorism feeds on fear -- fear to go out, to be a part of massive crowds, or be found in large public places -- whether its the Boston Marathon or the first shopping day of the holday season.  And its designed to scare us well beyond the scope of what actually happened.  And that (what happened), we believe is actually more rare than our senses suggest.  Give credit to the nation's law enforcement and security experts for their vigilance following 9/11 to lock down on terrorist opportunities.  But recall the gloomy predictions that we would see chaos every few months afterward?  It didn't happen because by refusing to succumb to terror and being vigilant but carrying on, we better managed our destiny.  And avoiding the reality disotrtion field these rare events cause is imperative.

There has been a bunch of research on fear and the brain teaches us to exaggerate threats, especially ones that are rare, immediate, with shock and awe, and in the end random.  The media feeds it, and we ingest it. Terrorism pushes all of our fear buttons, very hard, and we overreact rather than respond. 

The simple truth is there is no fool-proof way to stop these senseless acts of terror -- whether domestic or foreign.  They will continue and so must we.  But we must not assume that at every corner chaos awaits.  Remain vigilant yes, but remain calm and carry on.

Remember, although it is easy to compromise the securtity of uncontrolled areas, terrorism experts will also tell you it takes an enormous amount of coordination, resource management, and precise execution of a plot.  Hollywood has made it spectacular (and deceptively simple) to blow things up.  In the real world it is really much harder to do; hard to bring together the materials, hard to get the coordination, and hard to make a workable plan go off like clockwork.  The result?  Yes, every so often there will be an unusual event where things come together and a tragic strike occurs.  But its rare, and we always adapt and adopt to the circumstances (even if it now means pulling our shoes off in airport security lines and body scans at nearly every public office entry).

We all should be angry; really upset.  For good reason.  But we should refuse to be terrorized.  And honestly, we think we'd all be better off if somehow the Media could contain themselves and refuse to sensationalize this.  Otherwise, we're playing right into the real plot of terrorism: to strike a disproportionate amount of fear, altering our behavior, and scuttling our daily lives.  Don't succumb to this. 

Sure, its hard to keep this perspective.  But how "successful" this attack is depends more on how we react in the next few months than the tragic and horrific scenes in Boston yesterday.  When we (over)react by changing laws, policies, or procedures that ultimately make our great nation less open, reducing our freedoms, and constraining our ability to flourish, then terrorism succeeds, even if the attacks fail.  If, on the other hand, we refuse to be terrorized, then terrorism tends to fail even if an attack is somehow a "success."

Like many of you, we have friends and family in Boston, our founding partner is originally a Bostonian, and we know many who went there to celebrate their achievement of being able to run 26 miles, 384 yards.  And as we (at C[IQ]) watch this unfold in the papers, on the 24-hours news cycle of cable, in the echo chamber that is the Internet, and at our airports' security checks (for some of us this morning) we feel compelled to remind our readers to refuse to be terrorized, because although its easy to be scared, that's exactly what "they" want.

We now return you to our regularly intended content.

The State of the Internet Continues to Amaze

Our parting shot for this Friday is about the state of the Internet, and it offers some food-for-thought in light of our earlier commentary this week on the United Nations Internet land grab that's underway.

For our clients and interested readers alike, we try from time to time to help you stay abreast of facts and figures about the growth, adoption and innovation of the Internet. Our CTO offers up this report today drawing from a recent presentation by Mary Meeker, a partner with Kleiner Perkins Caufiled & Byers (KPCB), a venerable leading venture capital firm based in the heart of the Silicon Valley.  Mary made her annual presentation that tracks the growth of the Internet last May and updated it during a presentation at Stanford University last week.

To summarize in a sentence: The data is stunning

And it suggests to us a couple of hallmark take aways:

  1. the Internet is assuredly on track to be your primary,and perhaps your exclusive venue for conducting business (depending on the nature of your market, product and services); and
  2. without a doubt, the connective tissue of human interaction across the Internet will be mobile in nature, or said differently, the desktop is rapidly diminishing to an inconsequential access means. 

With that let's look a litte deeper and we offer the 88 slides presentation below for you to peruse on your own.  And you should.

First, Mary's data (as well as other sources) suggest a notable shift away from Windows-powered Intel machines (so-called "Wintel" platform) in the past few years. However, another way of interpreting her graph is that the device market expanded with new mobile and tablet categories. And accordingly, it can also be argued that the new market segments diluted the Wintel segment, rather than causing a shift away.


Regardless of how you see it, Apple has managed to do what for years the pundits maintained could never happen: it has caused a fracture in the Wintel monopoly.  Although Apple may have been the first rock into the Wintel windshield, it is Google's Android OS that’s causing the riples of crack lines across Microsoft's market hold.  according to the Meeker data, since Q-4 2010, combined shipments of tablets and smartphones have exceeded the number of PCs shipped and that trend shows no sign of slowing down.

Here are some other factoids to consider when thinking about the state (and impact) of the (global) Internet:

  • There are now 2.4 billion Internet users worldwide, a number that’s still growing eight percent yearly.
  • There are more than 1.1 billion smartphone subscribers worldwide — but that’s still just 17% of the global mobile phone market.
  • 29% of U.S. adults now own some sort of an Internet-enabled tablet device.
  • Mobile devices now account for 13% of worldwide Internet traffic, up from 4% two years ago.
  • Mobile app and ad revenue has grown at a CAGR of 129% since 2008, and now has crested $19 billion USD.
  • And here is perhaps an omen of things to come:  Mobile traffic app Waze has been adding users faster than all GPS makers combined have sold personal navigation units, and it’s been that way since the beginning of 2012. (Intellectually honest disclaimer: Mary Meeker, vis-a-vis her VC firm KPCB, is an investor in Waze ;-)

The KPCB presentation goes on to detail how these device and connectivity trends are leading to the complete re-imagination of everything.  For our Clients we encourage a moment of reflection: how you create, establish, and sustain a relationship with your customers is also dramatically shifting.  We think the underlying message here is "Go mobile, young man, go mobile."

And when you look at this data, is it any wonder there is land grab food fight underway in the United Nations over control of the Internet going forward?

 

That's our Friday Parting Shot, and hopefully it will feed your CRM strategic planning.

Happy Holidays

Is the Web Destined to be Regulated by the United Nations?

You may recall we commented about Internet governance awhile back because, well, although you might feel very removed from such issues, how the rules of the global Internet are fashioned and enforced will have a clear potential impact on how you do business in the digital age of an always-on society.  We mentioned then that a big meeting about this was scheduled in Dubai this Fall. It arrived a week ago today, and is underway – a 12-day conference debating who does (or should) rule the global Internet.

Some would argue (and we tend to agree) that the very success of the greatest global communications revolution since the advent of telephone happened because there has been a meritocracy rather than an top-down administrative, politically motivated bureaucracy.  How’s that worked out?  Well in fact, the Internet as the network of networks has experienced no down time since its inception some 50 years ago.  Ponder that for a moment.  Oh sure, there have been partial slow downs in service, but to be sure, the Internet has never had to be shut down and restarted nor experienced a “blue screen of death" (here's the new version).

Well, this could all be at risk, given that those nations who have commercial and/or geopolitical interests at stake have raised the issue up to the United Nations.  But let’s emphasize the word “could” at this point (at the risk of getting caught up in the hyperbole of both sides of the argument.)  Regardless, for digital commerce managers, we think it’s a good idea to keep an eye on this.  And you can look to us to keep you apprised (feel free to reach out) since one of our partners is a sustaining member of the Internet Society and long time observer/contributor to the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF).

Here’s the deal: the World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT, pronounced “wicket”), began this past Monday, with a goal of drafting a new treaty to set the stage for international telecommunications regulations.  The thing is, “telecommunications” as the term now applies, effectively means the Internet.  Perhaps nuanced, the issue essentially comes down to whether the rules that have applied to “circuit switched networks” (that is your good old telephone) should equally or perhaps more so apply to “packet switched networks” (in particular the packet switched network – the network of networks we know as the global Internet).

Let’s back up just a bit at the risk of this turning into an unintended treatise (there are gigabytes of far better content about this via a Google search).  But to summarize, the current rules that govern telecommunications on a global basis were put in place nearly a quarter of a century ago, in 1988.  And the conference is sponsored by the International Telecommunication Union (ITU); that is, the United Nations agency for information and communication technologies.  The intent to change and/or update the rulebook has spread worries about a cyber-grab for centralized control of the Internet by the United Nations.  Consider the ITU's own self-proclaimed basis for so-doing.

There are arguments on both sides regarding Internet governance, each driven by their own commercial or geo-political agenda.  However, we do believe that to an extent the Internet Society has unwittingly brought some of this on itself.  The reason so many controversial issues are being brought up in the ITU is that existing “multi-sectoral” components of the Internet Society like ICANN, IANA, or the IETF have had difficulties ensuring broad international representation. Some countries express frustration about  the slow pace these institutions have taken towards supporting global concerns, such as providing full support for non-English domain names and different character sets.

The fears are fueled by criticism for a lack of transparency in this process to date including unpublished documents and secret proposals catalyzed by inevitable political horse-trading destined for debate.  And that’s a far cry from the meritocracy and transparent processes that have formed and refined the Internet for the past near half a century.  You see, WCIT is open to member governments and to hundreds of corporate and organization members, but their proposals and deliberations are secret. This makes it very difficult for the general public to know what’s going on in the meeting and to influence the process.  As with other international policy making organizations that work in secret (like the WTO), there’s a good case to be made that the WCIT and ITU need to be pressed into greater transparency before they are given public trust.

The results of this secret, some say “land grab” are fueled by the nature of some of the agendas being advanced in this confidential proceeding.  For instance (and here is where the proverbial rubber hits the tarmac for our Clients), the most significant proposal on the table is not about who controls the Internet, but who pays for it.  ETNO, an organization of European telecoms, is proposing to start charging large content providers a carriage fee for delivering content; in other words, YouTube and Facebook, for instance, would have to pay a European network operator to reach European viewers.  Let your mind wander on what such a proposal once implemented, could portend for a range of other digital commerce activities.  This quickly can become the proverbial slippery slope.

Coverage of this matter in the U.S. edition of The Guardian with an editorial by Dan Gilmor, offers this strong quote addressing equally concerning issues of censorship, content regulation, and most disturbingly, the mechanics of how the Internet routes traffic:

The very idea that the ITU could obtain and exert major regulatory powers over the Internet is a happy one only to dictators and others who believe the Internet needs to be controlled. We've seen again and again what nation states like Syria, China, Saudi Arabia and others do when they are unhappy with online content or conversations. Even a hint that such censorship could spread should be, and is, anathema to people who believe in fundamental free speech rights. Russia, in particular, has proposed regulations (pdf) that the United States ambassador to the meeting called "the most shocking and most disappointing" of any he'd seen.

So, perhaps its no surprise that one of the most dominant players in the Internet’s growth and commercial maturity, Google, is emerging as the most vocal critic.  To be sure, there are plenty of others, we think there should be a whole bunch more.  Google, for now, however, is leading the charge with its own campaign launched last month calling for all Internet users (yeah, that would include you) to lobby their governments to charge that the conference is not the forum to determine the future (and/or fate) of the global Internet.  The problem is, Google explains, only governments have a voice in the ITU.  And this includes government without any interest in a free and open Internet.  You can probably guess which governments they might be; Dan’s quote above certainly calls some out publicly.

We think the key battleground at the conference will be the proposal from Russia and several African nations (alluded to above) to wrest control of the Internet from the Internet Society’s ICANN (the Internet Corp. for Assigned Names and Numbers), the organization that helps oversee the Internet naming and addressing schemas, and other groups that are primarily based in the U.S.  The Russian proposal, leaked on WCITleaks.ORG, a web site set up to counter the lack of transparency, calls for individual countries to "have equal rights to manage their Internet including in regard to the allotment, assignment and reclamation of Internet numbering, naming addressing and identification resources."

These developments and issues are not going away.  While there is little likelihood of immediate or even near term direct impact to how our Clients conduct digital business and build and sustain customer relationships in an online world, we believe it is imperative to keep eyes wide open and ears trained forward as this unfolds.  Explore some of the links in this article, and search online for more.  Familiarize yourselfwith this development, and/or stay in touch with us as we will continue to closely monitor this through our Partner who remains active in the Internet Society.  Although this topic may seem tangential to the matters of customer intelligence and relationship management, make no mistake of its potential impact down the road—particularly for those of you conducting global digital commerce.

Let us know what you think.  And let’s elevate the conversation.

Don't Shoot Me I'm Only the Message!

...or maybe we should say "Don't shoot me I'm only the piano player" ;-) 

Apparently, a recent comment or two by uber geek Mark Zuckerburg in his leadership of Facebook has sent several scurrying to scuttle plans for their mobile apps because the word is HTML5 was a bummer for FB mobile development.  Well, let's not shoot the message -- maybe the messenger in this case, but not the message.  In other words, we're suggesting there is no need to abandon HTML5 just because its fallen from favor at Facebook.  But on the other hand, HTML5 may not be the best choice depending on what you're trying to achieve with your mobile app. 

Um, let's back up a bit.

This all got started when a client recently complained to us,

We're so confused about mobile development for our planned CRM apps.  Should we use HTML5 or go native?  Facebook says HTML5 sucks.

We think we helped calm our client's tattered nerves by explaining this is not a conundrum of some sort, but simply a deployment question concerning user experience and the intents and purposes of an App in a mobile world.

So, in the spirit of our comments a couple of days ago, we thought we'd bring this question to the attention of our readers.

First, the fuss for this Client all began because someone in their IT department had either read or heard about the uber social networker himself Mark Zuckerburg bashing HTML5 during an on-stage chat during a technology geek-in last month in the Silicon Valley (actually San Francisco).  But we don't think they actually attended the event, or they probably wouldn't have tossed the proverbial monkey wrench in the manner they did during a marketing technology planning meeting.  The disruption was not helpful.  Here is why.  The trouble is (was) that Facebook had placed a big bet on HTML5 to achieve their mobile web experience and it gave them fits given the wide variety of user experience elements in FB.  And they finally did what they had to: they embraced native experiences and developed their latest Facebook mobile in both iOS and Android.

But just because HTML5 didn't work for Facebook doesn't mean it won't work for anyone thinking mobile.  In fact, the C[IQ] Tech Team  points out that there are a handful of factors we consider when making a strategic recommendation about deploying any CRM app in a mobile setting.  Here are five of them:

  1. User Experience.  First and foremost, consider the interaction model.  HTML5 works fine for apps that have a simple user experience, such as filling in forms or making clickable choices. However, if the user experience is more complicated say for something like a Loyalty Program (think Starbucks Awards on your phone), then going native may be preferable.
  2. Data Privacy and Security.  If sensitive data capture is involved, HTML5 may be preferred in a solution that leaves all of the data on secure servers (e.g. think anything financial services or healthcare).
  3. Connectivity.  Of course, there is always the question of dropped connections or poor reception.  In such situations, HTML5 is not a good choice over a native experience local to the device.
  4. Device Neutrality.  Until very recently the strongest argument for HTML5 was platform independent deployment -- write once deploy everywhere.  Well, "everywhere" has arguably narrowed to Android and iOS (notwithstanding whatever market penetration Microsoft may make with their new mobile device platform).  Yet, you need to consider your customers and how the majority of them are likely to interact with your business in a mobile setting.
  5. Leveraging Device Capabilities.  Finally, native apps can offer the most robust and rich user experience and capabilities if on-board services can be utilized.  For example, a native app can use the device's camera for capturing images like QR codes, product labels, etc. whereas relying on a mobile web app means confining functionality to the "sandbox" of the browser.

At the end of the day we caution clients to not stress over the mobile deployment question.  And we also think it ill advised to react based on the words of uber geeks ;-)  In our humble opinion, despite its enormous reach, technology strategy should not revolve around Facebook or whatever Facebook leaders believe is the answer or the trend.  Simply determine your customer requirements (user experience, capabilities, etc.) and the objectives of your planned app, and then make a call on whether to go native or stay nuetral. 

The message is valuable: HTML5 is not for every application instance.  The manner in which the message was delivered and the ensuing knee-jerk market reaction it engendered... calling to mind funnier moments of the Life of Brian ...was not

As to making those deployment technology decisions: Been there. Done that. And we can help.

On Being Communications Bankrupt

Some suggest that quality over quantity is winning the day in the blogosphere.  Maybe so.

But the real challenge may be coming up with new and fresh things to say about relevant topics. The "always on" nature of the Web combined with 24x7 news cycles and cable make it nearly impossible to be the first on a topic (or even the most relevant) unless we (or someone) sits here on a continuously monitoring basis.  Probably not worth it.  Frankly, we'd rather spend our precious cycles delivering for our clients.

But suppose for a second we did a clever job of using RSS feeds, bots, and other intelligent tracking tools to give us the stuff most relevant to us to share with our clients and readers, the fear is we'd still #FAIL.  And the simple reason: content bankruptcy.  In an age of content abundance, we're drowning. 

No, actually we're simply communications bankrupt... that is, the content consumption bandwidth side of the ledger is overcome with the amount of content to consume.  And this is most apparent within our inboxes here.  We intake and stock pile gigabytes of messages and content like the squirrels outside our window this time of year, but seldom if ever do anything with it until that moment of panic when we often hear cursing in the office as someone tries to wrangle Google gMail searches to find that elusive message.

For practical purposes, one glaring result is this medium here -- our blog.  We swear we're back in the saddle with planned regular contributions, only to fall radio silent and due to a couple of repeating problems:

  1. By the time we wade through the daily grist of content in our inboxes or on one of our collaboration platforms (Opal is our fave by the way) the topic of relevance is no longer, or it has already been so bludgeoned with other posts, retweets, continuously updating pundit columns, screen saver news casters, wire service streams, and assorted carnival barker commentary, that it seems a disservice to rehash it further.
  2. Another time management hurdle is simply disciplining ourselves to offer up stuff of relevance to our clients in as timely a manner as possible.  Client work comes first here, always (the Bosses read this! ;-)  Client relationship management is a close 2nd (yes, we eat our own dog food ;-).  The distant 3rd becomes all other things "client development."

This latter notion "client development," which means different things to different people, for us is an important part of our own CRM.  And we're coming to realize that "development" in this sense is (or should be) more about helping our present and past clients who happen by here with SMART content.

Sure, "development" in this context can also refer to growing our own business and we won't pretend to ignore the fact that blogs, tweets, newsletters, and other communications are supposed to have the value of keeping us and our services in the forefront of clients and prospects' minds.  But for us that is not our primary purpose here (at least for now; we've been blessed with a solid referral network to date...knocking on a piece of hardwood.)

To avoid a rambling, let's bring it back to our intended point:

We're all communications bankrupt here at C[IQ]

We're not making the best use of our tools (eMail, blog, twitter, etc.) for the benefit of our clients (or yes, ourselves).  And so we're on a hunt to improve, streamline, and smarten our content feeds, as well as do a better job of increasing their utility.

All of that brings us to two quick points.

  1. Going forward, we're going to focus on topics here that are purely client driven; that is, material that emerges from client inquiries, work challenges (and solutions), and stuff that is inline with current assignments.  We still may frolic and detour into more heady topics on occasion -- after all we still feel concerned about Internet Governance, for example.
  2. And here is the key item:  If any of this post has resonated with you; if you've found yourself nodding in agreement, then consider how this problem is impacting your customers as well.  In fact, use this as the yardstick for your own client relationship management strategy: knowing that we're all drowning in content and the signal-to-noise ratio is continually degrading, develop new ways (and means) of communicating with your customers in such a manner that whenever you offer something it will assuredly have their attention.

We've opined repeatedly about SMART communications and all that.  And sure, we all must strive to be succinct, meaningful, applicable, relevant, and above all, timely.  But there is possibly another element -- one that may even seem counter intuitive.  It came to light from us reaching out to our clients recently to learn their view on how frequent we blog, communicate, or push content to them.

Less is More.

Yee-up, that's right.  In fact, turns out that no one is complaining about radio silence from us on this front.  Of course, before we assumed the worst on that response, we probed deeper.  And we also discounted clients who we are in daily contact from current work. And the feedback was the same: in essence they told us, "We have come to expect that you don't blather daily on topics and flood us with communications, so that when you do post something or send us an item we actually read it because its probably important or very relevant."  In other words, the space between postings is actually making what we do put up more important or "quality over quantity."

So, it may be that in this always-on, always connected, 24x7 continuous content cycle that its increasingly all sounding more like noise than signal.  Therefore, a new element to SMART communications may be frequency.

We're not sure this anaogy completely builds, but if so, then maybe "frequency" is sort of a means of "Chapter 11" for communications insolvency.  Yeah, sure as Lawrenece Lessig and others have pointed out: eMail bankruptcy is that point in which you simply delete everything before a certain date, effectively flushing and starting over.  But in a re-org or bankruptcy workout the idea is not simply to flush the debt, but restructure the business to prevent debt from overcoming the balance sheet again. 

We think bringing more intelligence into communications for CRM is increasingly imperative.  And it may no longer be enough to be SMART.  It may now be about some sort of cadence or frequency factor as well.  We'll ponder that some more, and hope you do too.  We'd love to hear (er, read) what you think.

We'll also try to become just a tad more frequent here, but not unless we have something we think offers some original thought on our part or adds something of value to your own content ledger.

Comment

Gregory Miller, CTO

Greg has been in the tech sector as a software architect and engineer, product manager, marketing and biz dev exec., and even IP and privacy lawyer for 3 decades. He is currently on the Board of a non-profit tech foundation reinventing America's election technology, is a venture adviser in the Silicon Valley, and serves as the CTO for C[IQ] Strategies, Inc.

Where Have We Been?

Happy First Friday in August!

We really didn't mean to appear on vacation here.  The hiatus from blog posting hasn't been intended, but we've been buried in some exciting projects and with a major launch of one last week we're finally coming up for air. 

We promise to share some of what we've been working on; our challenge is, one of the projects is in total stealth mode for a well known brand.  The 2nd is for a fairly well heeled start-up, which we can tell you about shortly (they actually launched Beta this week), and the 3rd is for another well backed start-up that we simply can't say anything other than things like "massively multi-player gaming," "enormous customer intelligence play" (in a responsible way), and well, "Facebook" (without being too sure any more how much that last keyword is really all that helpful ;-)

Stay tuned; we promise: we're back!

Comment

Gregory Miller, CTO

Greg has been in the tech sector as a software architect and engineer, product manager, marketing and biz dev exec., and even IP and privacy lawyer for 3 decades. He is currently on the Board of a non-profit tech foundation reinventing America's election technology, is a venture adviser in the Silicon Valley, and serves as the CTO for C[IQ] Strategies, Inc.